How does animal welfare taste? Combining sensory and choice experiments to evaluate willingness to pay for animal welfare pork

Although consumers show considerable interest in higher animal welfare, the market share for such products remains low. To provide consumers with a choice regarding different levels of animal welfare, animal welfare labels have been developed. Such product options are intended to serve as intermediate products between conventional products and more expensive organic options that are often associated with high animal welfare standards. This study aims to evaluate whether information about animal welfare practices affects consumers' liking and willingness to pay (WTP) for a pork product. Using a within-subject design with three evaluation rounds (blind, expectation, and full information) we combine hedonic liking where subjects rate four different types of ham with a choice experiment. Hams differ in the animal husbandry conditions during the rearing and fattening process: conventional rearing, a specific treatment of mother sows, a general animal welfare label, and organic production. Results show an effect of information on consumers' sensory evaluation of the different products, although products were evaluated to be similar in the blind condition. Consumers rated the organic product higher than those with animal welfare labels while the conventional option had the lowest liking scores. Results from the choice experiment concur with the hedonic rating. Estimates indicate that consumers are willing to pay more for ham bearing a general animal welfare or organic label in the expectation and full information condition. Consequently, information regarding animal welfare affects both consumers' hedonic liking and WTP for ham.